Human Nature: Science, Technology, and Life.

Race, Genes, and Cancer

Black people, on average, are more likely to die of cancer than white people. Is part of that difference genetic? The Journal of the National Cancer Institute just published a big study on this question. If you haven't heard about the study, maybe that's because you get your news from television, National Public Radio, the Associated Press, or the New York Times, which have ignored it. Why would they ignore it? Because the study suggests the answer is yes. It's OK to report that racial differences in cancer outcomes are caused by poverty and discrimination. It's not OK to report that they're inherited.

More here.

Bias and Biodiversity

Steve Sailer has replied to my last comment on our differences over racial inequality. He accuses me of triangulating against him. He's right. The only part he left out is that sometimes you get triangulated because you're actually wrong.

Here are three passages that crystallize where we disagree. First:

To Saletan, my having spent years toiling at the unpopular task of correctly figuring out one of the central conundrums facing modern America—how race, IQ and public policy interact—makes me a bad person.

Stop right there. Race and genes interact. Genes and IQ interact. But to say that race and IQ interact, without even mentioning genetics or environment, is a scientific and moral mistake. It's like saying that race and criminality interact, without acknowledging any intervening variable. Race is not a causal unit.

Second:

For purposes of sensible public policy, arguing over whether genetics plays a role in racial differences in achievement is a red herring. What's crucial to understand is that racial differences—for whatever reasons—are unlikely to vanish Real Soon Now, as all right-thinking people are supposed to assume.

Say it's discovered in 2010 that the entire cause of the black-white IQ gap is some hitherto unknown micronutrient needed by pregnant women that African-Americans don't get enough of, and a crash program is put into place immediately to solve the problem. If that happened, the IQ gap among working-age adults still wouldn't disappear until the late 2070s. ...

Of course, if there really are genetic differences in average intelligence among the races, that would make the "disparate impact" notion look silly. But it's not actually necessary to know that. It's merely enough to know that fair and valid predictors of future job performance have routinely found substantial gaps for decades.

That's a pretty clear statement that public policy has no responsibility to redress any cause of racially unequal outcomes. Hey, I'm all for colorblindness. But segregation? Denial of schooling? Some injustices demand redress. Sailer's argument rationalizes too much. Did childhood poverty deprive you of equal educational opportunity? Did Jim Crow impair your family's ability to accumulate financial and cultural assets? Too bad. You and the other kids screwed by this legacy have flunked "fair and valid predictors of future job performance." Here, take this mop. And hang onto it, because your kids will need it.

It's one thing to say we can't affect the distribution of talent. It's quite another to say we have no responsibility to affect or compensate for the distribution of resources.

Third:

As long as legal immigrants are carefully selected for optimum benefit to current American citizens, as well as (to quote the Preamble to the Constitution) "our posterity", and are quite limited in number, then I don't see much reason to consider race in choosing legal immigrants.

Others would disagree. Overall, it's not a particularly big issue as long as we change the law from the current system of "family reunification" chain migration.

Don't see "much" reason? Not a big issue?

What reason would there be to consider race in choosing immigrants? And if we did that, are you saying you wouldn't mind?

Sailer and other exponents of "human biodiversity" seem to want more attention and respect than they've been getting. Here are two ways they can earn it. First, show as much interest in biodiversity within racial and ethnic groups as in biodiversity between them. And second, take into account the reality of racism, not just the reality of race. That's part of human nature, too.

Portrait of Artest as a Young Man

It's hard to keep your mind on work when your favorite sports team is playing out of its mind. My team, the Houston Rockets, lost its star guard, Tracy McGrady, midway through the season. Then it lost its backup center, Dikembe Mutombo. Then, three days ago, it lost its center, Yao Ming. Yao and McGrady are done for the season; Mutombo is done for good. You might as well ask a country to fight a war without its army, navy, and air force. But on Sunday afternoon, the Yaoless, McGradyless, Mutomboless Rockets—a bunch of role players who'd been shrugged off by general managers around the NBA—stomped the Los Angeles Lakers, this year's front-runners for the league title. Their playoff series stands tied at 2-2.

Why am I bringing this up in a science blog? Because we've been talking lately about stereotypes, and the subject came up in a New York Times account of a confrontation between the Rockets' Ron Artest and the Lakers' Kobe Bryant during the series. Artest was angry that Bryant

had elbowed him near his neck. He jawed angrily at Bryant, at close range. Then, having made his point—and having been ejected by the referees—Artest calmly walked off the Staples Center court. ... Artest's turbulent past—a blur of technical fouls, scuffles, a smashed television camera and a domestic violence arrest—is fading but not forgotten. The consensus among the Rockets was that the Game 2 ejection stemmed not from Artest's actions but his résumé. Artest joked that it was akin to racial profiling—"past history profiling," he said with a chuckle.

"The thing about Ron is, he will never get the benefit of the doubt again," [Rockets forward Shane] Battier said. "Any questionable situation, people will automatically stereotype and refuse to give him the benefit of the doubt."

I love these guys. But there's no such thing as stereotyping a man based on his own past. Stereo means more than one person. Being judged by your own behavior is the opposite of stereotyping. And "racial profiling," as defined by the ACLU, means "targeting individuals for suspicion of crime based on the individual's race, ethnicity, religion or national origin." If Artest were being targeted based on race, Battier would be getting the same treatment. But Battier gets the opposite treatment: If your grandmother bumped into Battier while asking for his autograph, she'd be whistled for a charge.

It seems a bit unfair that Battier gets the benefit of the doubt and that Artest doesn't. Referees, like the rest of us, are influenced, often unconsciously, by opinions they've formed about each player. Battier has earned a reputation for lawyerly adherence to the league's rules. Artest has earned a reputation for hotheadedness. For this reason, Artest is far more likely than Battier to be deemed guilty of a foul, even in identical circumstances.

Is this kind of discrimination wrong? If so, you'd better take it up with Martin Luther King Jr. His dream was that people would "not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." Character isn't whatever you did just now. It's the pattern of your life: your personality, your reputation, your profile. Judging a man by his character means taking account of that pattern. "Past-history profiling," the neologism Artest coined in jest, is actually a pretty good translation of what King envisioned.

So don't fret about the profiling, Ron. The civil rights generation fought for your right to be judged on your own history. The rest is up to you.

The Race Conversation, Continued

Based on the evidence so far, there's good reason to believe that genes influence everything and exclusively control nothing. Intelligence, in particular, is a field with lots of evidence for heredity but little evidence for the precise impact of any known gene. We're very early in this research. If you start poking around in scholarly debates over IQ and general intelligence, or "g," you start to realize how much the field resembles astronomy or particle physics, with entities and qualities being calculated from complex inferences rather than directly observed. That's not to say inferences and calculations aren't scientific. But we should beware mistaking them for unshakeable facts.

More here.

Genes, Inequality, and Colorblindness

We've already identified genes that correlate with traits and vary in prevalence between ethnic groups. Are you confident that intelligence will turn out to be exempt from this list? Confident enough to leave no backup plan, no understanding of equality that can withstand a partial role for heredity? Confident enough to keep tallying and reporting test scores by race? And if intelligence turns out not to vary genetically between groups, do you imagine that we'll get just as lucky with every other significant mental trait?

More here.

First They Came for the Mexicans

Wasn't it just this morning that we were talking about the perils of classifying and treating people according to race?

Look at the news from China this afternoon. According to the New York Times:

The Chinese authorities have confined dozens of Mexicans to hotels and hospitals despite having no signs of human swine virus, Mexican consular officials said Monday. ... Since last Thursday, when an AeroMexico flight from Mexico City arrived in Shanghai with an infected man, Chinese health officials have been rounding up his fellow passengers as well as travelers on other flights who showed no signs of illness. But authorities also sequestered a number of Mexican passport holders who had not been home in months ...

This is exactly what I worried about in last week's discussion of thermal scanners:

If you think heat is a bad proxy for flu infection, ask yourself whether it's worse than nationality. Travel companies are canceling flights to Mexico. Today, Japan began denying visas to Mexicans on arrival. Governments and businesses want an easy way to identify, segregate, and scrutinize the people most likely to be carriers. Which group would you rather they target? People with excess body heat? Or Mexicans?

Looks like China has already decided to target Mexicans. And please don't try to defend this as a logical response to a flu that came from Mexico. When you're rounding up Mexicans who haven't been home during the flu's existence, logic is out the window.

Strictly speaking, this isn't inappropriate classification and discrimination based on race. It's inappropriate classification and discrimination based on nationality. But the point is the same: Beware the easy recourse to crude categories.

Inequality, Racism, and Framing

People of your race may be on average faster, smarter, or more volatile than people of my race. But the opposite pattern may turn up if you and I are classified in some other way. ... The distribution question doesn't settle the framing question, because race is just one way in which ability can be unevenly distributed. To answer the framing question in the affirmative, you have to show something more. You have to show that classifying and comparing by race, rather than using some other classification system or judging each person as an individual, does more good than harm.

More here.

Race and Test Scores

Why categorize and measure students by race? Aren't there better ways to organize the data? "Lower-performing 9- and 13-year-olds make gains," says one section of the NAEP report. "No significant change for 17-year-olds at any performance level," says another. "Reading scores improve for 9-year-old public and private school students over long term," says a third. "Score increases for 17-year-olds whose parents did not finish high school," says a fourth. These tables organize the data by factors that can help us target and adjust educational policy: kids with low scores, kids in public school, kids in high school, kids whose parents didn't graduate. I'd like to see tables for income and spending per pupil, too. But race? Does that category really help? And what message does it send to kids when headlines assert a persistent "racial gap"?

More here.

Race, Genes, and Criminal Justice

Is it OK to guess a perpetrator's race and appearance from DNA found at the crime scene?

A few weeks ago, Gautam Naik of the Wall Street Journal updated us on a fertility clinic's program to screen embryos for "eye color, hair color and complexion." The clinic hoped to use a method that could supposedly "identify [genes] that relate to northern European skin, hair and eye pigmentation in 80%" of IVF embryos.

Two weeks later, when the clinic suspended the program, I suspected its concession was more technical than moral. Predicting traits from genes is hard. That's one reason why so many threats and promises of genetic engineering haven't materialized.

But now it seems I may have underestimated the field. Naik has returned with further research on the genetics of appearance. Gene-trait correlations are becoming increasingly precise. And the practice to which they're being applied most aggressively isn't embryo screening. It's law enforcement.

Here's his latest report:

Murray Brilliant, a geneticist at the University of Arizona, is developing a predictive test for skin, eye and hair color. Supported by a grant from the U.S. Department of Justice, he and his colleagues recently analyzed DNA material provided by 1,000 university students from different ethnic backgrounds. They found a total of five genes that account for 76% of the variation for hair color, 75% for eye color and 46% for skin color. Similarly, scientists from Erasmus University published a paper in March in the journal Current Biology based on a DNA analysis of 6,000 people in the Netherlands. For that population group, they found that only six DNA markers are needed to predict brown eye color with 93% accuracy and blue eye color with 91% accuracy.

Some of those numbers are quite impressive. If they're packaged into an affordable embryo test, I guarantee you buyers will start lining up. But look where the money's coming from. Brilliant got his grant from DoJ. The Erasmus group got its funding from the Netherlands Forensic Institute, which "provides services to clients within the criminal justice chain, such as the Public Prosecution Service and the police." In fact, Naik points out, "[t]he push to predict physical features from genetic material," known as "DNA forensic phenotyping," has

already helped crack some difficult investigations. In 2004, police caught a Louisiana serial killer who eyewitnesses had suggested was white, but whose crime-scene DNA suggested—correctly—that he was black. Britain's forensic service uses a similar "ethnic inference" test to trace murderers and rapists. In 2007, a DNA test based on 34 genetic biomarkers ... indicated that one of the suspects associated with the Madrid bombings was of North African origin.

Whoa, there. Do we really want cops hunting for people of a particular race or ethnicity based on uncertain inferences from a DNA sample? Apparently several states don't. Nor does Germany. These jurisdictions, according to Naik, forbid "the forensic use of DNA to infer ethnicity or physical traits."

I understand the concern. But these prohibitions are a mistake. DNA forensic phenotyping doesn't need to be perfect. It just needs to be better than—or a substantial way of double-checking—the unscientific inferences we already make.

The Louisiana case sets off racism alarms because DNA phenotyping said the culprit was black, whereas witnesses said he was white. But that isn't the usual pattern. Decades of research suggest that a witness is more likely to misidentify a person as the perpetrator when the accused person is of a different race. And according to the Innocence Project,

Racism continues to be a significant cause of wrongful convictions. While 29% of people in prison for rape are black, 64% of the people who were wrongfully convicted of rape (and then exonerated through DNA) are black. Moreover, most sexual assaults nationwide are among perpetrators and victims of the same race (the federal government says just 12% of sexual assaults are cross racial), but two-thirds of all black men exonerated through DNA evidence were wrongfully convicted of raping white people.

DNA phenotyping didn't invent the problem of erroneous racial inferences in law enforcement. That problem is as old as racism and lives on through mug books, lineups, and eyewitness testimony. As the Innocence Project points out, DNA is beginning to clean up the problem. Granted, DNA phenotyping isn't nearly as reliable as DNA matching. But is it really worse than relying on witnesses alone? At the very least, wouldn't it be useful and wise to check witness recollections of the perpetrator's race or ethnicity against a DNA phenotype analysis?

The same goes for facial features. Naik reports:

Mark Shriver, an anthropologist and geneticist ... [is] trying to construct a "picture" of a person's face by analyzing DNA. He calls the technique "forensic molecular photo fitting," and it is supported by a $500,000 grant from the U.S. Department of Justice. ... His team collected DNA samples and photographs from 243 people ... and used computer techniques to correlate the genes with his subjects' facial features. They have found six genes that seem to influence such traits. One gene is associated with the height of the face; another is associated with its width. Yet another gene affects the shape of the lips and the nose. By piecing together these elements, Prof. Shriver hopes to create a modern-day version of the police artist sketch.

Initial results of this method will probably be pretty crude. But will it end up being worse than old-fashioned police sketches based on eyewitness accounts? Would we have caught the Son of Sam killer earlier, for instance, if his police sketch hadn't been wildly inaccurate, making him look Latino or Asian?

No, DNA phenotyping isn't perfect. But it's better than nothing. And it's better than trusting witnesses alone.

Blacks, Gays, and Michael Steele

Four months ago, this column looked at the overwhelming black vote for California's Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage. Why would one group, having endured discrimination, vote against the rights of another?

Answer:

Whites, on balance, have come to believe that sexual orientation, like color, is immutable. Blacks, on balance, haven't. They see homosexuality as a matter of character. "I was born black. I can't change that," one California man explained after voting for Proposition 8. "They weren't born gay; they chose it."

Here are the numbers:

In a 2003 Pew survey, 32 percent of whites said homosexuality was inborn, 15 percent said it was caused by upbringing, and 40 percent said it was a lifestyle preference. Latinos answered roughly the same way. But only 15 percent of blacks agreed that homosexuality was inborn; 58 percent said it was a lifestyle preference. A plurality of whites (45 to 39 percent) said a person's homosexuality couldn't change, but a two-to-one majority of blacks (58 to 30 percent) said it could. The pattern persists in Pew's 2006 survey. A plurality of whites said homosexuality was inborn, and a majority said it couldn't be changed. A majority of blacks said that homosexuality was just how some people preferred to live and that it could be changed.

Now comes Michael Steele, the new chairman of the GOP. Steele is black. In an interview with GQ's Lisa DePaulo, Steele concedes:

Q. Do you think homosexuality is a choice?
A. Oh, no. I don't think I've ever really subscribed to that view, that you can turn it on and off like a water tap. Um, you know, I think that there's a whole lot that goes into the makeup of an individual that, uh, you just can't simply say, oh, like, "Tomorrow morning I'm gonna stop being gay." It's like saying, "Tomorrow morning I'm gonna stop being black."

This matches what the nation's leading black Democrat, Barack Obama, has said. In a November 2007 appearance on Meet the Press, Obama declared, "I do not believe being gay or lesbian is a choice."

This is very bad news for opponents of gay marriage. As Proposition 8 demonstrated, blacks have become politically pivotal on this issue. If they follow Steele and Obama in coming around to the idea that being gay is like being black, look out.

Age, Prejudice, and Prognosis

Earlier this year, I criticized Medicare for spending $35,000 on a heart implant for a woman who was about to turn 100. The basic argument was:

Should we means-test people on Medicare not just for wealth, but for age? ... The theory is that just as some people have enough money, others have had enough time. If you make it to 100 and can fund your own surgery, that's terrific. But Medicare should focus its resources on people who haven't been as lucky as you. Living to 99 is no tragedy. It's a blessing.

Several of you chastised me for callousness. And now a report from a recent American Heart Association conference backs you up. Marilynn Marchione of the Associated Press tells the story:

Eighty-year-olds with clogged arteries or leaky heart valves used to be sent home with a pat on the arm from their doctors and pills to try to ease their symptoms. Now more are getting open-heart surgery, with remarkable survival rates rivaling those of much younger people, new studies show. ...

In Florida, Dr. Paul Kurlansky led a study of 1,062 octogenarians who had heart bypass surgery at Mount Sinai Medical Center in Miami Beach from 1989 through 2001. ... Average survival was roughly six years—almost the same as similarly aged people who do not have heart disease. Overall, 90 percent survived their surgery to leave the hospital. This improved dramatically as the study went on, from 85 percent in the early years to 98 percent by its end. Even more impressive: 65 percent survived without surgery-related complications and even more without long-term complications ...

A Yale cardiologist draws exactly the conclusion I rejected: "Age itself shouldn't be an automatic exclusion." Marchione adds: "Not every older person can undergo such a challenging operation, but the great results seen in the new studies show that doctors have gotten good at figuring out who can."

This doesn't settle the underlying question of whether there's such a thing as having lived long enough, regardless of what a new device or surgery will do for you. But it does underscore that age, like race, is a crude basis for making individual projections.

Race, Genes, and Sports

In case you missed it, here's an excerpt from Friday's piece:

I've had my share of arguments with people who deny that race is biologically meaningful. Many of them are dedicated to the proposition that all humans are created equal, not just in the sense of moral worth or treating each person on his merits, but literally, in the sense that no genetically based difference can be admitted in average ability between populations. That kind of egalitarian literalism—I call it liberal creationism—becomes harder and harder to sustain in the face of evidence such as the data on ACTN3.

More here.

The Paradox of Discrimination

Look who's flirting with animal rights.

In recent days, the New York Times has published two in-house commentaries on Spain's move to legislate rights for apes. "We like to think of these as absolutes: that there are distinct lines between humans and animals," Donald McNeil, Jr., wrote Sunday. "But we're kidding ourselves." Yesterday, Adam Cohen added that "showing respect for apes would elevate humans."

I agree with my human colleagues. But that agreement is the beginning of a huge mess.

The mess starts when we abandon an old religious idea. "Ten years ago, I stood in a clearing in the Cameroonian jungle, asking a hunter to hold up for my camera half the baby gorilla he had split and butterflied for smoking," McNeil recalls. He remembers the words his guide spoke at the time: "A gorilla is still meat. It has no soul." This, McNeil notes, is the position of Spain's Catholic bishops: Humans have souls; animals don't.

Secular humanists reject this dogma. We understand that there's something wonderful and uniquely worthy of respect in the power, richness, and subtlety of the human mind. But to us, the soul doesn't explain these wonders. It describes them. That's one reason why the destruction of human embryos doesn't torment us the way it torments pro-lifers. We don't believe in ensoulment at conception. We believe in the gradual development of mental capacities.

This puts us in an awkward position. We call ourselves egalitarians, yet we deny the equality of conceived humans. We believe that a woman deserves more respect than a fetus. A 26-week fetus deserves more respect than a 12-week fetus. A 12-week fetus deserves more consideration than a zygote. We discriminate according to ability.

This is also why ape rights appeals to us. It's not a claim of equality among all animals. It's a claim that apes resemble us in ways that insects don't. It's a kind of discrimination. Cohen observes that Peter Singer, the philosopher behind the ape rights movement, believes that "species should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis." And McNeil reports:

In an interview, Mr. Singer described just such calculations behind the Great Ape Project: he left out lesser apes like gibbons because scientific evidence of human qualities is weaker, and he demanded only rights that he felt all humans were usually offered, such as freedom from torture -- rather than, say, rights to education or medical care.

This multi-tiered approach to species and rights isn't just Singer's position. It's your government's position. As Cohen points out, chimps get special protection under the Chimpanzee Health Improvement, Maintenance and Protection Act. McNeil adds:

Even animal cruelty laws have a bias toward big mammals like us. For example, in a slaughterhouse, chickens are sent alive and squawking into the throat-slitting machine and the scalding bath. But under the federal Humane Slaughter Act, a cow must be knocked senseless as painlessly as possible before the first cut can be made.

In other words, as the pigs of Animal Farm put it, some animals are more equal than others. And if that principle applies to other animals -- discriminating among them based on humanlike capacities -- does it also apply to us? Are some humans more equal than others?

We've already established that you accept this principle if, like me, you discriminate among preborn humans based on degree of development. And if you accept that humans and apes gradually evolved from common ancestors, then you'd also probably discriminate among born humans based on degree of evolution. As McNeil observes, the archaeological record of human bones "suggests that some of our ancestors exited this world as stew." Were the ancestors who gnawed those bones truly human?

We don't like to face such questions. Like creationists, we ridicule anyone who lumps us together with other primates. Cohen says animal rights activists "come off as loopy" when they say things like, "I am an ape." But according to the U.S. government, that statement isn't loopy. It's fact. All of us are great apes.

If preborn and prehistoric humans are less worthy of respect, what about born, living humans who seem functionally subhuman? McNeil says we're kidding ourselves when we imagine that "certain ‘human' rights are unalienable." He mentions a terrorist who beheaded a reporter. Is it possible, he asks, to forfeit your human rights for subhuman behavior?

On the other hand, if we deem some people less human than others, does it lead us back to the bad old days of racism? McNeil raises this question in the context of his African guide's comment about the butchered gorilla: that it was just "meat" because it had "no soul." The comment, he writes,

was an interesting observation for a West African to make. He looked much like the guy on the famous engraving adopted as a coat of arms by British abolitionists: a slave in shackles, kneeling to either beg or pray. Below it the motto: Am I Not a Man, and a Brother? Whether or not Africans had souls -- whether they were human in God's eyes, capable of salvation -- underlay much of the colonial debate about slavery.

To say the least, that's a controversial analogy. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals made a similar comparison three years ago and was charged with racism. "They're comparing chickens to black people?" an NAACP spokesman protested at the time. Cohen offers the same objection, faulting PETA for "boneheaded moves, like the ad it ran juxtaposing photos of penned-up animals with starving Jews in concentration camps." He doesn't mention his own paper's juxtaposition of gorillas with Africans a day earlier.

Not that I should be throwing stones. I've got my own contradictions to sort out: that it's wrong to eat animals but not meat; that it's wrong to compare mistreatment of blacks to mistreatment of animals; that it's wrong to "predict the criminal propensity of unborn children based on the color of their skin"; that we should "prepare for the possibility that equality of intelligence, in the sense of racial averages on tests, will turn out not to be true"; and that it's pernicious "to group people by race and compare averages."

I'm still working my way through the puzzle of equality as we learn more about human and animal biology. So are McNeil, Cohen, and others. It's a communal dialogue between morals and science. Where it will lead, I can't say. But what strikes me at this point in the conversation is that equality and discrimination are intricately related. What we often call equality -- sorting creatures into biological groups and treating each group member as identical to the others, but different from members of other groups -- is also discriminatory. That's the paradox of "human rights."

Each of us mixes the two in our own way. Spain extends its "community of equals" to gorillas but not gibbons. Catholic bishops demand rights for zygotes but not chimps. PETA equates racial with interspecies equality. The NAACP discriminates between discriminations.

For my part, I've come to suspect that the first problem to deal with isn't inequality. It's indiscriminateness. Discrimination in the best sense means seeing each individual as she is. It takes effort. You have to look past the surface of things. It's easier to assign individuals to groups and judge them that way. But it's also, to the same extent, unfair. The unfairness arises not from inequality, but from how we organize it. Inequality, at the biological level, is mostly nature's fault. Indiscriminateness is ours.

The DNA Age

My colleague Jack Shafer says the Pulitzers are a fraud. "There's no real science or even fairness behind the picking of winners and losers," he wrote in a piece published four years ago and reprinted last week, after this year's winners were announced. In particular, he noted, "I doubt that one newspaper reader in 10,000 could tell you a day after the Pulitzers are awarded who got the prize for explanatory reporting."

Well, never argue with Shafer. Except this once. The winner of this year's prize for explanatory reporting deserved every bit of it, not just for her terrific writing, but because, for the past two years, she's been pioneering the journalism of the next century.

The prize announcement salutes Amy Harmon of the New York Times for her "examination of the dilemmas and ethical issues that accompany DNA testing." Harmon's series, "The DNA Age," has actually covered far more than that. It began two years ago and has weaved its way through a thicket of emerging controversies. Her opening topic was people who used DNA tests to establish unexpected ancestry—such as whites claiming to be black, or Christians claiming to be Jewish—in order to gain the ensuing advantages in areas such as minority admissions, Israeli citizenship, or Native American entitlements. Then she turned to the psychological and social effects of studies that tell us much of our behavior is genetically influenced.

Harmon wrote about the moral deliberations of couples who used preimplantation genetic diagnosis to weed out embryos that might carry or pass on diseases. She talked to parents of Down syndrome kids, who worried that the eradication of Down fetuses by prenatal tests would turn their children, in the public's mind, from disabled people into freakish burdens that should never have been brought to term. She detailed our increasingly methodical genetic engineering of dogs as a potential preview of genetic engineering of human beings. She introduced us to women who had healthy breasts surgically removed based on genetic predictions of cancer. She explored fears that analyses of average genetic and trait differences among populations might foment a "new era of racism." She chronicled the emerging ability to Google your own DNA. She wrote about families who use the Internet to find and bond with other families over shared genetic disorders.

Last month, Harmon looked at "genomic elitism," the practice among rich people of paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for a full DNA analysis normal people couldn't afford. And a week ago, she scrutinized "surreptitious sampling," the law-enforcement technique of obtaining incriminating DNA samples by testing cells and fluids you inadvertently leave in public places every day.

Half of what's amazing about this body of work is that nobody else has done anything quite like it. In retrospect, the trends Harmon has covered will be recognized as the story of our age. We're living in an era of science and technology. Discoveries about ourselves and the world, coupled with our increasing power to transform both, are changing how we live, what we think, and who we are. This is happening at a pace unheard of in previous generations. In Sunday's Washington Post, another of my favorite science writers, Joel Achenbach, points out:

The most important things happening in the world today won't make tomorrow's front page. They won't get mentioned by presidential candidates or Chris Matthews or Bill O'Reilly or any of the other folks yammering and snorting on cable television. They'll be happening in laboratories—out of sight, inscrutable and unhyped until the very moment when they change life as we know it. Science and technology form a two-headed, unstoppable change agent.

The fact that such developments are now being recognized by the Pulitzer board and are blanketing the Post's Sunday opinion section is, in itself, good news.

But that's only half the reason to applaud Harmon's award. The other half is the way she has covered—or, in her case, invented—the beat. Lots of writers, including me, have opined about the abstract virtues or evils of biotechnology. We think we're being visionary or "morally serious." But real moral seriousness isn't about abstractions. It's about flesh and blood: the real people in whom, and in whose lives, the abstractions take shape. You can't really understand or explain abortion, war, or economic globalization until you've talked to people who have been through it. The same is true of biotechnology. If you go in with moral assumptions, the experiences you see or hear about may change your mind, or at least complicate it. That's part of the point of reporting, not to mention reading.

I can't do justice to "The DNA Age" in a blog post. Read it for yourself. It's as provocative as any sci-fi collection and as nuanced as any novel. Except it's real.